You're all Transgender hens until Proven Otherwise!!

fasttalkerchat

The thread title sounds like something you tell yourself in a night club in Thailand.

Mardy Bum

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Nope. Nature would crate the male/female role all by itself if we didn't try to class it.

Transgender was the wrong word the more I think about it, wish I had a word for it.

How would "nature" make a role. When did nature learn how to talk? We are a little more advanced than cats and dogs. Language creates roles. You appear to think the world is black and white. Its grey. There is no such thing as the male/female role. They are sexes. Gender is completely different. Look up what sex and gender means.

sbsquarepants

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The majority of boys like having sex with girls. That's a universal truth and if it wasn't none of us would be here.

Seems like common sense to me. I have nothing against homosexuality but it is ludicrous to suggest it is anything other than a minority.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You may have to find out what a truth is before saying things like that.

Sex, gender and sexuality are all different.

True to an extent, but i don't believe gender is anything like as manufactured as some people would have you believe.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I'm afraid essentialism stopped being taken seriously after the 60s. Gender is a societal construct. Male and female are different sexs alright but that has nothing to do with man/woman or heterosexuality/homosexuality.

Sounds like bollox to be honest. Males are male, females are female - they always have been and always will be. You can see the differences in dogs and cats for god sake and very few of those have read Sartre

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Gender and sexuality are phenomenally complex. Freud, Klein, Winnicott, Lacan, Foucault, Sartre are essential reading. You have to be able to see the difference between sex, gender and sexuality. You dont mean boys as boys you mean male as boys from what I can see from your posts. Boys as boys doesnt make sense.

It's a wholly contrived distinction. Boy and male are, in all but the most ponsy patheticaly politicaly correct terms, interchangeable, as are girl and female.

Confab wrote: »

Not sure what the OP is on about. A girl on a buggy wouldn't phase me particularly. A boy pushing a pram is going to get laughed at. A boy wearing a Spiderman outfit while wheeling a pram will be ostracized and beaten up. Proper order too.

Confab, you're a man of principles. I like the cut of your jib!:D

wonderfulname

biko wrote: »

Han - him
Hon - her
Hen - gender neutral word. They

We already have gender neutral words in English.

What's the problem with not forcing over the top gender roles on children? Its getting ridiculous at this stage, I don't remember any pink princess housewives or mini manly men when I was growing up but I see them everywhere now, strange, one dimensional, boring children. Even if you take the gender issue out of it it's just plain weird anyway, and a disservice to every child that seems to be growing up with a personality that can be described with a colour, it can be very limiting to train people into those roles.

xflyer

The whole nature or nurture argument is obviously pointless. The simply reality is that all through history and the world today in wildly different societies and civilisations male/female roles remain pretty consistent. If there was a better way it would have happened by now.

It's all very well for some Swedes and a few others to try and change society. But it's doomed to failure. People vary in behaviour and sexuality and gender identity right across the spectrum. But the simple truth is that the majority of people fit the broad stereotype. In all seriousness no amount of tinkering with gender identity and behaviour will turn most boys onto playing with dolls or behaving like girls unless they already that way inclined. Same with girls with have no interest in playing with dolls and wearing pretty dresses and they definitely have pressure to conform to the stereotype.

Sure, it might make a more tolerant society where a boy taking an interest in traditionally female roles will be applauded rather than bullied. But I doubt that even if it's encouraged you will find many takers. In the case of girls, for years now they've been encouraged to take on many male careers with the result that some previously male professions are dominated by women, notably in medicine. But they've almost universally ignored most of the more techie type jobs.

I would like to see a more tolerant society, where being different whether it be gay or gender identity is just 'normal' in a different way. To some extent, walking the streets of the cities in this country it seems to be happening already. Amazing for someone like me brought up in the old way. But forcing it, is not the way to go.

But it's not the end of the world as we know it. Because it won't work. People don't change easily, even Swedes.

The King of Moo

biko wrote: »

It's not only "hen". Now they've introduced Dum and Mad (instead of Mum and Dad, my translation btw) in a new kid's book called "Kiwi and the monster dog".

Btw, if anyone is interested in gender and equality etc read the book "Egalia's Daughters"

That seems a bit extreme. I guess the idea behind it is that Mum and Dad are gender-loaded terms to be avoided, but I don't think that's the case these days. I think it'd be better to keep the terms but demonstrate that they don't have to be tied to outdated gender stereotypes.

And I still think they can be used in the case of single parents and same-sex couples. I can't imagine any kid having a problem with being brought up by Mum and Mum.

armitage_skanks

In nature the opposite sex of many animals behave differently.

The female lioness tends to mind the children and catch the food, while the male protects the pride and chases off other males who might jeopardise the stability of the pride. If you observe them enough, males and females clearly have different personalities and behaviours.

Are these 'gender roles' that have been pushed onto lions by society? If you put them into a zoo when they are young and don't have these roles pushed onto them by their fellow lions, what happens? Does the male start behaving like a female and vice versa?

Nope. Males and females are biologically different and this affects both physical appearance and psychological behaviour. That's just one of the wonderful beauties of life and for the PC Brigade to try and deny that is ridiculous.

Wetai

biko wrote: »

In this article from a Swedish daily the word "hen" is used to gender neutralise the person.

Oh .. Its an ok word then IMO, as long as they use an androgynous word in other languages but I wouldn't be surprised if they just used hen in English.

I don't get why this wasn't mentioned in the OP.

wonderfulname

xflyer wrote: »

But the simple truth is that the majority of people fit the broad stereotype.

For the most part, yes, but I have yet to meet someone who wholly does, be it a man enjoying cooking or a woman screaming at the rugby on tele, a child shouldn't feel bad for having an interest on the other side of the line.

Mardy Bum

sbsquarepants wrote: »

True to an extent, but i don't believe gender is anything like as manufactured as some people would have you believe.



Sounds like bollox to be honest. Males are male, females are female - they always have been and always will be. You can see the differences in dogs and cats for god sake and very few of those have read Sartre



It's a wholly contrived distinction. Boy and male are, in all but the most ponsy patheticaly politicaly correct terms, interchangeable, as are girl and female.

It is manufactured and has been proven since the 60s onwards conclusively by the experts in a range of fields. Obviously male is male. I said sex is different to gender i.e male/ female =/=man/woman. Boys is a created term to signify difference there is nothing essential about it (While Im at it all language is made up to create difference through binary opposites, all words are signifiers they don't actually correspond to anything only the constructed terms society has given them). It doesn't make a different if its PC or not the actual fact that people don't recognise how society is constructed is more worrying.

CreepingDeath

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

What I think is unfair is forcing a gender role on a child from the moment they pop out. I feel a child has a right to make up their own mind, make mistakes and learn.

Absolute rubbish.

Every one of us here can (theoretically) trace their parents and parents parents etc., back to the beginning of life on this planet.

We have all successfully survived millions of years of natural selection and sexual selection because our ancestors were heterosexual and followed cultural gender roles.

The fact that our parents survived and were able to reproduce says that their choices, genes and lifestyle were successful (from a biological point of view) to continue their genetic line. And that's the only goal that matters in life.

So it makes complete sense that parents pass their knowledge, values, culture and concepts of gender to their offspring so that they follow a similar successful path in life.

Every mammal on the planet teaches their children their way of life, because it works and has worked for millions of years.

The ones who fail to follow it and stray off the heterosexual path are typically voluntarily removing themselves from the human gene pool.
A genetic dead-end to a malfunctioning mindset.
Mod note: user banned for this comment

The King of Moo

armitage_skanks wrote: »

In nature the opposite sex of many animals behave differently.

The female lioness tends to mind the children and catch the food, while the male protects the pride and chases off other males who might jeopardise the stability of the pride. If you observe them enough, males and females clearly have different personalities and behaviours.

Are these 'gender roles' that have been pushed onto lions by society? If you put them into a zoo when they are young and don't have these roles pushed onto them by their fellow lions, what happens? Does the male start behaving like a female and vice versa?

Nope. Males and females are biologically different and this affects both physical appearance and psychological behaviour. That's just one of the wonderful beauties of life and for the PC Brigade to try and deny that is ridiculous.

What about all the gay animals?

Doesn't the fact that they're not discriminated against suggest that some of our ideas about gender and sexual identity are unnatural?

I don't buy the "animals have gender roles so we should" argument anyway. First of all, only the majority of animals follow stereotypical gender roles. You give the example of lions, but what about male seahorses, who carry the eggs until they hatch, not the females?

Second, we're a bit more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom. We're rational, intelligent creatures, for the most part, so why should we automatically do as other animals do when we can question things that are taken for granted and choose what we want to do, or be?

jaffacakesyum

Haven't read much of the thread but the pose on the spiderman boy is hilarious :pac:

The King of Moo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.

Every one of us here can (theoretically) trace their parents and parents parents etc., back to the beginning of life on this planet.

We have all successfully survived millions of years of natural selection and sexual selection because our ancestors were heterosexual and followed cultural gender roles.

The fact that our parents survived and were able to reproduce says that their choices, genes and lifestyle were successful (from a biological point of view) to continue their genetic line. And that's the only goal that matters in life.

So it makes complete sense that parents pass their knowledge, values, culture and concepts of gender to their offspring so that they follow a similar successful path in life.

Every mammal on the planet teaches their children their way of life, because it works and has worked for millions of years.

The ones who fail to follow it and stray off the heterosexual path are typically voluntarily removing themselves from the human gene pool.
A genetic dead-end to a malfunctioning mindset.

I'm a little unclear. Are you suggesting that people choose to be homosexual?
In what sense is homosexuality a "malfunctioning mindset?"
Do you think homosexuals can "repair" their mindsets?

I also don't really see what your post has to do with the one you quoted about children being free to come to terms with their own identities.

wonderfulname

CreepingDeath wrote: »

We have all successfully survived millions of years of natural selection and sexual selection because our ancestors were heterosexual and followed cultural gender roles.

Gender has nothing to do with sexuality.

Following your advice I have thought back through my family tree, cultural gender roles certainly not followed, yet I'm still here?

And I hate to break it to you, but the gheys are having children all over the place.

xflyer

wonderfulname wrote: »

For the most part, yes, but I have yet to meet someone who wholly does, be it a man enjoying cooking or a woman screaming at the rugby on tele, a child shouldn't feel bad for having an interest on the other side of the line.

That's why I called it a broad stereotype. I remember staying with Mother recently watching television. I turned on a romantic comedy until I noticed my Mother pouting. Turns out she wanted to watch the football on the other channel. Something I have no interest in. Like I said it's a broad stereotype.

Mardy bum, you over analyse. At it's simplest boy means young male child. Even if that child identifies as female in her own mind.

King of the Moo, if this discussion is about gender roles, sure I can agree. Any forcing of gender roles is wrong. But denying gender identity is quite different and this is what is being attempted in Sweden and elsewhere. If it was a case of encouraging the expression of gender identity that might be good. But ultimately it will only affect a few. Most people are fairly comfortable with the identity. It would be equally wrong to force children to behave in a way that's against their instincts.

PhlegmyMoses

Spidermen are Spidermen, not Spiderwomen. No way should a Spiderman be pushing a pram around. He should be out saving people. He now seems to simply be out. Society really has problems when Spidermen can't be Spidermen.

The King of Moo

xflyer wrote: »

That's why I called it a broad stereotype. I remember staying with Mother recently watching television. I turned on a romantic comedy until I noticed my Mother pouting. Turns out she wanted to watch the football on the other channel. Something I have no interest in. Like I said it's a broad stereotype.

Mardy bum, you over analyse. At it's simplest boy means young male child. Even if that child identifies as female in her own mind.

King of the Moo, if this discussion is about gender roles, sure I can agree. Any forcing of gender roles is wrong. But denying gender identity is quite different and this is what is being attempted in Sweden and elsewhere. If it was a case of encouraging the expression of gender identity that might be good. But ultimately it will only affect a few. Most people are fairly comfortable with the identity. It would be equally wrong to force children to behave in a way that's against their instincts.

I agree that forcing a child from identifying with a role they might feel inclined towards is wrong, but I don't think that's happening in this case. The kids are going to come across gender roles in every aspect of their life: their family, other kids, tv. I think what the schools are doing is simply not providing them with more set gender roles. But I'm sure if a boy wanted to play with a toy gun or a doll, the teachers wouldn't tell them to stop and be more gender-neutral. I think they're just not trying to push them down a certain path and let them find their own path.

wonderfulname

xflyer wrote: »

That's why I called it a broad stereotype. I remember staying with Mother recently watching television. I turned on a romantic comedy until I noticed my Mother pouting. Turns out she wanted to watch the football on the other channel. Something I have no interest in. Like I said it's a broad stereotype.

So you see that being less rigid in gender roles is beneficial to more than just the minority?

xflyer wrote: »

Mardy bum, you over analyse. At it's simplest boy means young male child. Even if that child identifies as female in her own mind.

That's a girl.

ghostchant

The King of Moo wrote: »

I don't buy the "animals have gender roles so we should" argument anyway. First of all, only the majority of animals follow stereotypical gender roles. You give the example of lions, but what about male seahorses, who carry the eggs until they hatch, not the females?

Is your example of seahorses not a perfect example of instinctive gender roles in a species? Surely it's stereotypical in the case of seahorses.

hightower1

Mardy Bum wrote: »

As a matter of interest do you have any idea why boys are boys etc? Do you believe it is something essential or is it a construction?

Gender is constructed by society through language. Do you recognise any difference in gender or is sexual difference gender defining? Every position we take is imaginary formed through discourse. Boys are boys etc suits capitalist society but it is not the be all and end all of humanity. Gender in Celtic times was a metaphysical concept which is markedly different to our predominantly sexual interpretation of it now.

There are no universal truths.

I think your getting gender and sexuality confused. Your chromosone make up determins and defines in a measurable way what gender you are. This was creatd by biology NOT society. Gay men are still men as their chromosone make up is very different to females. IMO I dont think a lot of gay men would apprechiate being called female and vice versa.

Angeles

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Sweden is trying to get rid of sexuality, it's already started in schools there.

So what? they can try what ever they want, it won't change humans by nature. Loads of studies were all done on this.
A young boy will always be aggressive in nature and lean towards items to use as weapons or "hunting items". Where as a girl will always be more naturally passive and lean to items such as dolls or "motherly items"

The company posting this stuff is doing nothing more then trying to get attention, and it has apparently worked.

Stark

A male looking after a baby and a girl driving a car. ****ing disgrace. They'll be showing her casting a vote next.

Mardy Bum

xflyer wrote: »

That's why I called it a broad stereotype. I remember staying with Mother recently watching television. I turned on a romantic comedy until I noticed my Mother pouting. Turns out she wanted to watch the football on the other channel. Something I have no interest in. Like I said it's a broad stereotype.

Mardy bum, you over analyse. At it's simplest boy means young male child. Even if that child identifies as female in her own mind.

King of the Moo, if this discussion is about gender roles, sure I can agree. Any forcing of gender roles is wrong. But denying gender identity is quite different and this is what is being attempted in Sweden and elsewhere. If it was a case of encouraging the expression of gender identity that might be good. But ultimately it will only affect a few. Most people are fairly comfortable with the identity. It would be equally wrong to force children to behave in a way that's against their instincts.

Its actually more of an education for the kids into how gender roles are constructed. Most people have been ingrained that they have no clue like a few in this thread.

paddyandy

O.P. There is an ongoing effort to create and strengthen a third Market .Shops Advertising , Media etc, etc, . Blurring the Difference is an ongoing crusade .

The King of Moo

ghostchant wrote: »

Is your example of seahorses not a perfect example of instinctive gender roles in a species? Surely it's stereotypical in the case of seahorses.

In the case of seahorses, yes, but not with all animals, which is what I think the poster I was quoting was suggesting.

Though I'm sure it has more to do with evolution rather than instincts.

And that's what separates us from the animals: we've moved beyond natural selection to a large extent and don't even have to be tied to traditional forms of childbirth anymore.

Just because we were generally (but not completely; gender roles are never hard and fast, even with animals) tied to gender roles as unthinking animals, doesn't mean we have to stick with them when we've evolved the capacity to question them and separate them to a large extent from biological sex.

I'm sure if seahorses could think, a few of the males wouldn't like being saddled with pregnancy!

awec

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Its actually more of an education for the kids into how gender roles are constructed. Most people have been ingrained that they have no clue like a few in this thread.

What?

xflyer

But I'm sure if a boy wanted to play with a toy gun or a doll, the teachers wouldn't tell them to stop and be more gender-neutral. I think they're just not trying to push them down a certain path and let them find their own path.

The problem is that I would tend to believe that they will try to tell them to stop. Particularly the boys. All too often the goal of these efforts are to try and rein in the boys. Get them away from more aggressive behaviour which is considered unacceptable.

Men are often seen as the problem in some circles. Getting to behave more like women seems often to be the goal. It's a quixotic quest in my opinion. But it could be damaging to children if pushed to extreme.

wonderfulname

hightower1 wrote: »

I think your getting gender and sexuality confused. Your chromosone make up determins and defines in a measurable way what gender you are. This was creatd by biology NOT society. Gay men are still men as their chromosone make up is very different to females. IMO I dont think a lot of gay men would apprechiate being called female and vice versa.

You're mixing up gender and sex, sexuality has nothing to do with this.

The King of Moo

xflyer wrote: »

The problem is that I would tend to believe that they will try to tell them to stop. Particularly the boys. All too often the goal of these efforts are to try and rein in the boys. Get them away from more aggressive behaviour which is considered unacceptable.

Men are often seen as the problem in some circles. Getting to behave more like women seems often to be the goal. It's a quixotic quest in my opinion. But it could be damaging to children if pushed to extreme.

That's a big presumption. I don't see any evidence for that, and I'm note sure you can say it's the case in Sweden.

Feisar

Swedes, a funny bunch, some fairly non PC stuff still abound there:

http://www.thelocal.se/38466/20120112/

Mardy Bum

hightower1 wrote: »

I think your getting gender and sexuality confused. Your chromosone make up determins and defines in a measurable way what gender you are. This was creatd by biology NOT society. Gay men are still men as their chromosone make up is very different to females. IMO I dont think a lot of gay men would apprechiate being called female and vice versa.

I am talking about gender roles. Language is the great definer of society. A man can be male, inhabit a feminine gender role and be heterosexual. We you enter the world the only thing that gives meaning is language and this language is patriarchal in nature.

suicide_circus

armitage_skanks wrote: »

Males and females are biologically different and this affects both physical appearance and psychological behaviour. That's just one of the wonderful beauties of life and for the PC Brigade to try and deny that is ridiculous.

And yet deny it they will because anything that is naturally intuitive or seen as 'establishment thinking' is abhorrent to them. Generally these are people who never fit in or were never truly at ease with themselves and seek to blame society for this rather than defects in their own makeup. Part of this is taking what the vast majority of the population hold as normal and demonising it as the cruel propaganda of our patriarchal society.

Mardy Bum

awec wrote: »

What?

Most people are unable to see how language and social structures create the world because they believe that there is something essential about both.

ScumLord

armitage_skanks wrote: »

In nature the opposite sex of many animals behave differently.

The female lioness tends to mind the children and catch the food, while the male protects the pride and chases off other males who might jeopardise the stability of the pride. If you observe them enough, males and females clearly have different personalities and behaviours.

Yes males act out in such a way as to gain the attentions of the females. From the outside Lions look like a kingship but their far from it. The lionesses rule the pride and the male is only there to provide sperm. If the female lions decided that they wanted or needed to have timid offspring then things would change pretty rapidly.

Just because something is biological it doesn't mean it's set in stone. For the most part females decide what is required for the next generation, it allows life to be adaptable and for gender roles to switch fairly rapidly to suit changing environments. In humans gender roles seem much more pronounced but it's almost exactly the same as the lions. Women pick the man that will give them the best offspring for the environment. These days we see women picking men that are better in the home and more sociable rather than big strong men that can kill anything and bring home trailers of turf.

Millicent

xflyer wrote: »

The whole nature or nurture argument is obviously pointless. The simply reality is that all through history and the world today in wildly different societies and civilisations male/female roles remain pretty consistent. If there was a better way it would have happened by now.

It's not really. There are academics and scientists who don't think so, at all, so why would the argument be pointless?

suicide_circus

ScumLord wrote: »

Just because something is biological it doesn't mean it's set in stone.

Equally, trends which have been happening for millennia arent wrong, evil or contrived just because some pointy headed sandel wearer wrote a book.

Feisar

Mardy Bum wrote: »

How would "nature" make a role. When did nature learn how to talk? We are a little more advanced than cats and dogs. Language creates roles. You appear to think the world is black and white. Its grey. There is no such thing as the male/female role. They are sexes. Gender is completely different. Look up what sex and gender means.

Language, which comes from the development of nature.

Aren't all these arguments inherently flawed due to the fact that we are all part of the system that we are trying to analyse or something to that effect?

xflyer

The King of Moo wrote: »

That's a big presumption. I don't see any evidence for that, and I'm note sure you can say it's the case in Sweden.

Not really, after all wasn't that the norm in the opposite sense? Boys not allowed to play with girls toys and vice versa. In any case I would bet any money that toy guns would be banned. They are in many creches. I know the one my boys attend is essentially gender neutral even if they have no agenda. What will it be like in one with an agenda?

Stark

Feisar wrote: »

Language, which comes from the development of nature.

Most Indo-European languages assign gender to inanimate objects. Doesn't mean those things actually have gender.

Mardy Bum

Feisar wrote: »

Language, which comes from the development of nature.

Aren't all these arguments inherently flawed due to the fact that we are all part of the system that we are trying to analyse or something to that effect?

Development of nature?? Language is completely made up by humans to describe things. What makes a chair a chair? Does the word c-h-a-i-r have some essential connection with the thing you are sitting on or is it a complete fabrication which we make up? The latter in fact. The only reason a chair is a chair is because it is different than a stool or a box or whatever. The word chair is a signifier nothing else.

suicide_circus

Feisar wrote: »

Language, which comes from the development of nature.

Aren't all these arguments inherently flawed due to the fact that we are all part of the system that we are trying to analyse or something to that effect?

Yeah agreed, we all being our own bias to the table, hard to see wood for trees etc but if that stopped us debating things we might as well give up now, close the universities, go live on.a hippy commune and smoke a **** load of weed.

hightower1

wonderfulname wrote: »

You're mixing up gender and sex, sexuality has nothing to do with this.

Could be alright, tis a tough concept to pin down?

Either way if I had kids I wouldnt give a flying one what toy they were playing with as long as they were happy. I would draw the line with excesive stuff IMO like a boy dressing in disney priness dresses etc.

At the end of the day though peoples kids are their own business, no one has the right to tell a parent how to raise their children so long as they are not harming them

xflyer

Millicent wrote: »

It's not really. There are academics and scientists who don't think so, at all, so why would the argument be pointless?

Perhaps if they were parents they might understand it better? There is of course and element of nurture but it is ultimately futile to attempt gender neutralise people. It's been tried several times and it doesn't work. Instinctively most of us realise that. Essentially if I have a female mind, you cannot turn it male and vice versa.

Millicent

xflyer wrote: »

Perhaps if they were parents they might understand it better? There is of course and element of nurture but it is ultimately futile to attempt gender neutralise people. It's been tried several times and it doesn't work. Instinctively most of us realise that. Essentially if I have a female mind, you cannot turn it male and vice versa.

You think academics and scientists don't have children?! How many times has it been tried? I am not aware of it ever being tried on a grand scale in history. And what if you have a female mind and a male body (this happens)? You agree that can't be changed and we should let that boy indulge his "feminine" side?

Mardy Bum

xflyer wrote: »

Perhaps if they were parents they might understand it better? There is of course and element of nurture but it is ultimately futile to attempt gender neutralise people. It's been tried several times and it doesn't work. Instinctively most of us realise that. Essentially if I have a female mind, you cannot turn it male and vice versa.

There is plenty of books on the subject if you actually want to become informed. I can understand what you mean but its really just a lack of knowledge of the subject and being completely immersed in a gendered society that you cannot see the grey from the black and white. The experts who dedicate their life to this subject live lives like everyone else. Its not about creating a gender neutral society its about highlighting the constructed nature of society and lessening ignorance to issues such as race, gender, sexuality etc.

wonderfulname

xflyer wrote: »

Not really, after all wasn't that the norm in the opposite sense?

That's a silly argument, kind of along the lines of "if we let the women vote, whats to stop them removing our vote?"* The behaviour people want to change isn't individually related to either sex, it's an overall idea of not forcing your child into a role, so your idea doesn't make sense.

*not a real quotation, but if it was, it would have been said by someone with awesome sideburns.

Feisar

Stark wrote: »

Most Indo-European languages assign gender to inanimate objects. Doesn't mean those things actually have gender.

Where does this gender assignment stem from? - Not arguing, just asking.

az2wp0sye65487

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if it was mentioned or not already...

All I thought when I saw the link in the OP was that the toy store that produced the catalogue is trying to increase their market by eliminating the perception of 'boys' toys and 'girls' toys...

wonderfulname

hightower1 wrote: »

I would draw the line with excesive stuff IMO like a boy dressing in disney priness dresses etc.

What makes that excessive, out of curiosity? Where's your line and why is it there?

I'm just curious, very few people are honest enough to say there is one and seem to claim either an all or nothing approach.